[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by enzo10

how much did it cost you to get CR70 all around? I paid 6K for my CR70 on the windshield.

The solar energy rejection of CR70 (50%) is way superior to RE70(34%)
thanks

It cost me 18.5 K for 4 windows and rear windscreen. No film on the front windscreen. It was very good with heat rejection and barely visible, unless you lower the glass and feel the edges. It was hard to let it go :(

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Even assuming that lack of sun-film on cars puts them at risk (which is debatable) how much time do kids spend in cars vs the time spent outside on the playground in school or playing with other kids ? We can't keep kids cocooned and unexposed to sunlight for all their life, worried that they will contract skin-cancer.

Why do we really need to do that ? Or to put it better, why do you think they need us to make them aware ? They would definitely be reading newspapers which have info about this enforcement. Or, they would be hearing of it from others ? Or they see this mentioned by the cops on the LED boards at traffic signals. Infact the average user is not as bothered about this as we are at tbhp. I talk to my colleagues and find just 2 types of response
(1) I have films installed and will either remove it now OR do it if I am fined (betting on the cops waving them off saying the film is not dark).
(2) I dont have films installed - so am good.

I apologize for not being clearer in my earlier post. This is neither about me nor about sun films. This is about my basic freedom to provide comfort for my family being taken away from me. Please read the kind of questions that people ask in BTP FB page and you will see the level of awareness the average user has. Also, I still feel it is the law makers' responsibilty to make the law enforcers aware.

I do not understand why you keep referring to sun cancer time and again, in spite of my clarification that there are lesser evils? You think sunburn is a very pleasant experience?

If my children decide to go play in the sun 12 hours a day, I will not stop them. Of course I will try to educate them about the harm, but I will not force them to stay indoors all the time. Having said that, I will not deny them the privilege of using the A/C when they are indoors, just because they spent so much time in the sun. IF they choose not to use the A/C, that is fine too. As a parent, it is my responsiblity to ensure I do my best, within my means to make sure my family is comfortable. I believe as a democracy, I should have the right to decide what is best for my near & dear, as long as I am not breaking any law.

CMVR 100(2) does not explicitly prohibit the use of sun control film. As per SC ruling, it is implied is what I understand. As a law abiding citizen, I voluntarily removed the sun control film from my car on the day the ruling came into force, inspite of 18.5 K going down the drain. That is because I respect the law and not necessarily because I agree with the ruling.

I really wish I had the means to measure the actual VLT of the glass, before pulling the film off. I am quite sure it was more than the specified 50% for the side windows. How can any harm come by using a film that rejects heat, keeps the interiors cool and comfortable, filters UV and still complies with the specified VLT%? Why should I deprieve my family of that comfort? Maybe no harm will come by taking the sun control film off, but it sure is less comfortable.

Try explaining the logic and the reasoning behind this ruling to a 12 year old and you will understand what I am saying here. How do I convince a 12 year old to respect and follow the law of the land, when I am unable to convince that it is right to start with?

Each man to his own Sir. Peace.

Rajan

[enzo10]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

It cost me 18.5 K for 4 windows and rear windscreen. No film on the front windscreen. It was very good with heat rejection and barely visible, unless you lower the glass and feel the edges. It was hard to let it go :(

Rajan

18.5K down the drain and here i was crying for my 4K spent on RE50s. Not touching my CR70 on the windshield.

And may be once the dust settles go for CR70 on the sides too.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by enzo10

18.5K down the drain and here i was crying for my 4K spent on RE50s. Not touching my CR70 on the windshield.

And may be once the dust settles go for CR70 on the sides too.

I am once again misunderstood, I am afraid. It is not about money Sir. It is about dignity & self-respect

Rajan

[lohithrao]

I think you dint get my point, i was trying to know why "only" this rule is being enforeced in all seriousness while there are other rules which are not all enforced. it was more of a "question"...

Originally Posted by cuboid

That's not a correct argument. We should question why the digital meter rule was not implemented promptly and completely. But not why this rule is being implemented. Definitely no, irrespective of how much I dislike this rule.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by lohithrao

I think you dint get my point, i was trying to know why "only" this rule is being enforeced in all seriousness while there are other rules which are not all enforced. it was more of a "question"...

Simply, it's the easy targets and much easier for them to find the offender than to do some real work. I normally don't lash out on these stuff but going to parking lots and checking for sunfilms is showing too much eagerness on their part to implement this rule which is not required with such urgency. Wish they had shown such urgency when all other crime happened then crime rate actually would've come down. But anyway, who are we to question. We are just mere pawns in this game.

[sumannandy]

I removed the sunfilms myself today, although only for front, side and rear. Films on quarter panel and rear sides could not be removed.

The overall visibility has greatly improved, specially while reversing at dark. I was thinking of getting a reverse camera. Inspite of having parking sensors, I recently "pushed" a bike while reversing, and I was thinking of getting a reverse camera. Now it is not required, and I think I saved Rs. 5k.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

You think sunburn is a very pleasant experience?

Wrong question to ask someone who has spent 25 summers in Chennai. All of May2012, everytime we walked out of the airconditioned office, the heat-wave that hits you makes you feel like you walked into a hot industrial oven. And to think that this was/is the sea-breeze that normally keeps us cool, which has turned into a heat-wave.

Regarding the children part, my whole point was that we are over-rating the time kids spend in cars that could expose them to sun (if at all) vs the more direct exposure they would otherwise get. Anyway to each his own.

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

CMVR 100(2) does not explicitly prohibit the use of sun control film. As per SC ruling, it is implied is what I understand.

Couple of pages ago (post#2251), you quoted some section from the ruling below and the part in bold clearly says that anything on safety-glass is impermissible.

23. In light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that use of black films or any other material upon safety glass, windscreen and side windows is impermissible. In terms of Rule 100(2), 70 per cent and 50 per cent VLT standard are relatable to the manufacture of the safety glasses for the windshields (front and rear) and the side windows respectively. Use of films or any other material upon the windscreen or the side windows is impermissible in law.

And if we all agree that the SC cannot create a new law, but only enforce implementation of existing law, then by saying that no film is allowed, it just means they are enforcing the existing law. Which means all of those who had films on their cars were violating the law (knowingly or unknowingly) and if that is the case, what is there to complain about in this whole issue ? If you removed the film, you are in compliance.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Wrong question to ask someone who has spent 25 summers in Chennai.

Regarding the children part, my whole point was that we are over-rating the time kids spend in cars that could expose them to sun (if at all) vs the more direct exposure they would otherwise get. Anyway to each his own.


Couple of pages ago (post#2251), you quoted some section from the ruling below and the part in bold clearly says that anything on safety-glass is impermissible.

I was born & brought up in Chennai Sir. I can relate to what you are talking here

Regarding the children part - Yes when they go out and play in the sun, they always have the option of calling it quits and getting back inside, when they feel they have had enough. Unfortunately, I do not believe they have the option of telling you " I have had enough of sun sitting in the car. Pull over under the next shady tree you find", when you are going on a long highway (read devoid of trees) drive.

True. Minor correction though - SC interpreted the law the way they did. Looks like you missed my mention of "explicitly". I also believe I posted, "I broke the law and I agree that ignorance is no excuse. I have now made amends to rectify that." (#1398)

I feel like Baba Ramdev now (hope you watched Times Now @7.00 PM)

IIRC, we had a similar discussion in a thread that discussed autorickshaws overloaded with kids, couple of years back. Even there my POV was similar to what I am saying here.

Rajan

[mayankk]

anger, revolt, justification, acceptance, this thread has gone through the break up cycle oh so many times.

[jeeva]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Infact the average user is not as bothered about this as we are at tbhp. I talk to my colleagues and find just 2 types of response
(1) I have films installed and will either remove it now OR do it if I am fined (betting on the cops waving them off saying the film is not dark).
(2) I dont have films installed - so am good.

Try talking to any of those "average" parents in your friends circle, if there are any. You will then perhaps understand what it means to get your kids/little ones exposed to the hot sun and the harmful UV rays for prolonged period in the car on our roads.

Sorry for going OT but then, going by your reasoning, that when we were kids, we used to play in the hot sun for hours together and here we are now cancer-free: Even today, one can see the kids of daily wagers and the likes working at construction sites and stuff, playing out the whole day out in the hot sun on the dirty grounds, eating whatever they find. Perhaps, that's the way they are and perhaps they have much more immunity and the surroundings don't deter them. I don't think you will want your kid or one in your family to do the same and yet remain healthy. The same applies here.

[samarjitdhar]

Originally Posted by mayankk

anger, revolt, justification, acceptance, this thread has gone through the break up cycle oh so many times.

Add avoidance, too. Well until now . I had stopped following this thread now for quite some time given that thankfully the cops in our city have realized that the summer is excruciating with the terrible humidity to boot (yeah, I know, I know, a lot of TBHPians would go, that in their city and many others, its even worse), but hey I am not complaining. Sorry for going so OT though, couldn't resist.

I still am putting faith in our venerable CM saahiba to make sure that anything coming out of Delhi, SC judgments included, will be first critically analyzed before any thought goes into acting on it. By then, I hope this ridiculous ruling is reversed.

EDIT: I guess I should count this as one of the rarest of rare benefits for being in Kolkata .

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by samarjitdhar

By then, I hope this ridiculous ruling is reversed.

I doubt if that is ever going to happen. The SC seems to have preempted any room for that. I am thinking an amendment of the relevant CMV rule would be the only hope.

For my own sake, I hope I am wrong.

Rajan

[Vid6639]

OT:

Like the grim reaper, I walked down into the basement, holding a knife in one hand and colin in the other. Both cars did not know what atrocity was to come their way. The first cut was made, both 3M and Llumar tried to put up some resistance but it was not be. With precision they were shred into pieces one window at a time. As I disposed of their mutilated bodies and walked back, I turned to see both cars and knew it would not be same again. RIP 3M CS20 and Llumar Steel 35.

Thanks for protecting us from the harsh sun. The protector does not always survive and just like the Terminator needs to be sacrificed. Till the resurrection.

[spadix]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

OT:
Thanks for protecting us from the harsh sun. The protector does not always survive and just like the Terminator needs to be sacrificed. Till the resurrection.

This also reminds me of a dialog from "The Dark Knight" -

Because he's the hero our cars deserve, but not the one they need right now. So we'll hunt him because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark film.

Anger, revolt, justification, avoidance, reconciliation and humour. We've come full circle.

I returned to Gurgaon today and there's a significant drop in the percentage of cars with films on their glasses over 2 weeks. And a lot more cars with chipkoos on them. Perhaps this perception is just because things are normal in Hyderabad, where I was for 2 weeks. I saw cops challenging cars at Exit 10 (Mini Secretariat/Sohna) of the NH8. I've decided to de-film my car's windows this weekend.

Regards,
spadix

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Regarding the children part - Yes when they go out and play in the sun, they always have the option of calling it quits and getting back inside, when they feel they have had enough.

But during the time they are under the sun, dont you think they have it coming direct onto them as compared to the barrier (car roof / windows) that shield them in the car ? We don't cover them in sun-film when we send them out to play in the sun, or do we ?

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

I feel like Baba Ramdev now (hope you watched Times Now @7.00 PM)
IIRC, we had a similar discussion in a thread that discussed autorickshaws overloaded with kids, couple of years back. Even there my POV was similar to what I am saying here.

I don't really watch much TV, and Ramdev is not really a favourite character. I dont remember much of the auto thread other than posting a snap about an overladen Qualis transporting kids in Kollam (Kerala), but will try searching for it to see what it was about.

Originally Posted by jeeva

Try talking to any of those "average" parents in your friends circle, if there are any. You will then perhaps understand what it means to get your kids/little ones exposed to the hot sun and the harmful UV rays for prolonged period in the car on our roads.

At age 40 and being a father of 2 kids, it would be only natural that my friends circle would be mostly "parents". I seriously don't understand - don't you guys have an a/c in your cars that can resist whatever it is that the sun throws at you ? That is what guys like us without sun-film on the windows use against the sun.

Originally Posted by jeeva

Sorry for going OT but then, going by your reasoning, that when we were kids, we used to play in the hot sun for hours together and here we are now cancer-free: Even today, one can see the kids of daily wagers and the likes working at construction sites and stuff, playing out the whole day out in the hot sun on the dirty grounds, eating whatever they find. Perhaps, that's the way they are and perhaps they have much more immunity and the surroundings don't deter them.

Wrong analogy, Sir. You and me were in the sun of our own wish. Those kids of constructions workers do not have an option. And regarding their better-immunity, it is more about circumstances - tomorrow if God forbid, you and me were reduced to that kind of a life (yeah, there is no betting that it won't be that way), us and our kids will have to develop the immunity you are talking about here. Because there will be no option other than that.

The whole episode has boiled down to the rant against helmets used by those that don't want to wear them - using helmets leads to hair-fall, making all of us bald or wearing helmets makes us deaf - cant hear the traffic. And those who wear helmets know that neither case stands scrutiny.